Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
TackleDirect ADA attorneys’ fees lawsuit overview:
- Who: TackleDirect filed a motion requesting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs after Plaintiff Yensey Contreras dropped a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of not making its website fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
- Why: TackleDirect argues that Contreras had no real intention of litigating his claims but rather simply wanted to collect quick cost-of-litigation settlements.
- Where: The motion was filed in New York federal court.
TackleDirect filed a motion requesting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from a dropped complaint accusing the company of not making its website fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
TackleDirect claims the plaintiff in the complaint, Yensy Contreras, should have been aware that he lacked standing to pursue his allegations against the outdoor fishing company and that the court “lacked personal jurisdiction” over it.
TackleDirect also argues that Contreras “chose poorly by moving to amend his cut-and-paste complaint in a trivial fashion instead of dismissing the case” after the company moved to dismiss his complaint.
While initially opposing the motion to dismiss, TackleDirect claims Contreras would ultimately end up “acceding to the inevitable” by “dismissing his case with prejudice.”
TackleDirect lawsuit claims plaintiff had ‘no real intention’ of litigating claims
TackleDirect argues further that Contreras had no real intention of actually ever litigating his claims made under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but rather simply wanted to “extract quick cost-of-litigation settlements.”
Contreras has similarly chosen not to litigate any of the other 146 complaints he brought in the Southern District of New York federal court, according to TackleDirect, which argues he “even has dismissed many cases in which the defendant defaulted.”
TackleDirect argues it is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the ADA, which, according to the TackleDirect lawsuit, states that they should be awarded to a defendant in the event a plaintiff’s claims are “frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.”
Contreras targeted a number of other companies with claims they failed to make their websites fully accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, including TripAdvisor and Johnson & Johnson.
Do you believe TackleDirect should be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs? Let us know in the comments!
TackleDirect is represented by Fredric P. Galin of Methfessel & Werbel, P.C. and Peter J. Brann and Hannah L. Wurgaft of Brann & Isaacson.
The TackleDirect lawsuit was Contreras v. TD Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09096, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
- Western Union class action alleges website inaccessible to blind, visually impaired
- Benihana class action alleges website not accessible to visually impaired, blind
- Chicago Cubs lawsuit alleges Wrigley Field does not have enough wheelchair-accessible seats
- Daytona International Speedway, Indianapolis Motor Speedway class actions allege websites violate Americans with Disabilities Act
